56 Former Judges Blast DMK’s Impeachment Drive Against Madras HC Judge as “Brazen”

Fifty-six former judges, including two retired Supreme Court justices and several ex-chief justices of high courts, issued a strongly worded statement on December 12, 2025, condemning attempts to impeach Justice G. R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court as a "brazen attempt to browbeat judges" and a threat that "cuts at the very roots of our democracy." The signatories, featuring prominent names like former Supreme Court judges Adarsh Goel and Hemant Gupta, expressed "serious exception" to the impeachment motion initiated by over 100 opposition MPs, primarily from the DMK-led INDIA bloc, arguing that even if the cited reasons were accepted, they were "wholly inadequate" for such an exceptional constitutional measure. They urged parliamentarians across party lines, the Bar, civil society, and citizens to denounce the move and ensure it is "nipped in the bud," emphasising that judges must remain accountable only to their oath and the Constitution, not partisan pressures.

The controversy stems from Justice Swaminathan's December 1, 2025, order directing authorities of the Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp on the historic Deepathoon pillar halfway up Thirupparankundram hill in Madurai, in addition to the customary lower site, asserting it as temple property without infringing on the adjacent Sikandar Badusha Dargah. When the order faced resistance, leading to a contempt petition, the judge permitted devotees to perform the ritual under protection, prompting the Tamil Nadu government to appeal to the Supreme Court. Opposition MPs, submitting the notice on December 9, accused the judge of misconduct, alleged bias toward certain advocates and ideologies, judicial indiscipline by overriding prior rulings, and raising concerns over impartiality and secularism in communally sensitive matters.

The former judges framed the impeachment bid as part of a "deeply troubling pattern" of political intimidation against the judiciary, citing historical precedents like Emergency-era supersessions and recent campaigns against chief justices such as Dipak Misra, Ranjan Gogoi, S. A. Bobde, D. Y. Chandrachud, and current CJI Surya Kant when rulings displeased certain groups. They warned that weaponising impeachment for disagreeable judgements undermines the rule of law, where verdicts should be challenged through appeals and legal critique, not threats of removal. Home Minister Amit Shah and BJP leaders have echoed this, accusing the opposition of "appeasement politics" and an unprecedented attack on judicial independence over a single ruling.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Provisions of Tribunal Act, Calls Government ‘Brazen Circumvention’

As the Lok Sabha Speaker considers admitting the motion—requiring a rare probe and two-thirds majority in both houses for success—the episode highlights escalating tensions between judicial autonomy and political sensitivities in Tamil Nadu ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections. While the DMK maintains the order risked communal harmony at a contested site with centuries-old shared traditions, supporters view the backlash as a vital defence of institutional integrity, reinforcing that impeachment is reserved for proven misbehaviour, not policy disagreements.

Also Read: Amit Shah Condemns INDIA Bloc’s Impeachment Bid Against Justice Swaminathan